Volume 66, Issue 4-5
  • ISSN 0521-9744
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9668
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The issue addressed in this study is the impact of source text presence on simultaneous interpreting performance in fast speeches. Fast speech rate is assumed to frustrate even professional interpreters in simultaneous interpreting (SI) without source text (ST) scenario, yet little is known about what happens when the ST is available to interpreters, an interpreting practice of increasing popularity. Previous studies present mixed results concerning the effect of fast speech rate and ST presence on SI quality, which further adds to the complexity of this issue. This study adopted the experimental approach with a qualitative assessment of SI quality, quantisation of output parameters and retrospective interview, to unravel some myths surrounding this issue. The 54 trainees were randomly divided into two groups to interpret two fast Chinese speeches into English under with and without ST conditions. The results found a significant effect of ST presence on the qualitative assessment of interpreting performance, on the interpreting delivery fluency, and on the information completeness. The facilitative effect of ST presence in fast speeches was confirmed while new issues also arise concerning trainee interpreters’ ability in eye-ear coordination.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Baigorri-Jalón, Jesus ; and Travieso-Rodríguez, Críspulo
    2017 “Interpreting at the United Nations: the impact of external variables. The Interpreters’ View”. CLINA: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Translation, Interpreting and Intercultural Communication3 (2): 53–72. doi:  10.14201/clina2017325372
    https://doi.org/10.14201/clina2017325372 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barghout, Alma ; Rosendo, Lucía Ruiz ; and García, Mónica Varela
    2015 “The influence of speed on omissions in simultaneous interpretation: An experimental study”. Babel61 (3): 305–334. doi:  10.1075/babel.61.3.01bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.61.3.01bar [Google Scholar]
  3. Baxter, Robert Neal
    2016 “Exploring the Possible Effects of Visual Presentations on Synchronicity and Lag in Simultaneous Interpreting”. Sendebar: Revista de la Facultad de Traducción e Interpretación (27): 9–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cammoun-Claveria, Rawdha ; Davies, Catherine ; Ivanov, Konstantin ; and Naimushin, Boris
    2009 “Simultaneous Interpretation with Text: Is the Text ‘Friend’ or ‘Foe’? Laying Foundations for a Teaching Module” Seminar Paper – Master of Advance Studies in Interpreter Training. École de Traduction et d’Interprétation, Université deGenève. https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:28305
  5. Chang, Chia-chien
    2005 Directionality in Chinese/English simultaneous interpreting: Impact on performance and strategy use (Doctoral dissertation). Austin (TX): The University of Texas.
  6. Daro, Valeria
    1994 “Non-linguistic factors influencing simultaneous interpretation”. InBridging the Gap: Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation, ed. by Lambert Silvie ; and Moser-Mercer Barbara . 249–272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.3.20dar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.3.20dar [Google Scholar]
  7. Galli, Cristina
    1990 “Simultaneous interpretation in medical conferences: A case-study”. InAspects of applied and experimental research on conference interpretation, ed. by Gran, Laura ; and Christopher Taylor . 61–82. Udine: Campanotto Editor.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Gerver, David
    1969/2002 “The Effects of Source Language Presentation Rate on the Performance of Simultaneous Conference Interpreters”. InThe Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. by Pöchhacker, Franz ; and Shlesinger, Miriam , 53–66. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Gile, Daniel
    1995, 2009Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training (Vol.8). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  10. Han, Chao ; and Riazi Mehdi
    2017 “Investigating the effects of speech rate and accent on simultaneous interpretation: A mixed-methods approach”. Across Languages and Cultures18 (2): 237–259. doi:  10.1556/084.2017.18.2.4
    https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2017.18.2.4 [Google Scholar]
  11. Ivanov, Konstantin ; Davies, Cathrine ; and Naimushin, Boris
    2014 “Teaching SI with text”. InFighting the Fog of Multiculturalis. A Festschrift in Honour of Irina S. Alekseeva, ed. by William Hackett Jones (English text), 48–61. St. Petersburg: Herzen University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Jesse, Alexandra ; Vrignaud, Nick ; Cohen, Michael. M. ; and Massaro, Dominic W.
    2000 “The processing of information from multiple sources in simultaneous interpreting”. Interpreting5 (2): 95–115. doi:  10.1075/intp.5.2.04jes
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.5.2.04jes [Google Scholar]
  13. Jones, Rodrick
    2002Conference interpreting explained. London: Routledge. doi:  10.4324/9781315760322
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315760322 [Google Scholar]
  14. Korpal, Powel
    2016 “Interpreting as a stressful activity: Physiological measures of stress in simultaneous interpreting”. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics52 (2): 297–316. doi:  10.1515/psicl‑2016‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2016-0011 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2017Linguistic and psychological indicators of stress in simultaneous interpreting. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Lamberger-Felber, Heike
    2003 “Performance variability among conference interpreters: examples from a case study”. InLa evaluación de la calidad en interpretacion: investigacion. ed. by Collados Aís, Angela ; Fernandez Sanchez , Maria Manuela ; and Gile Daniel . 147–168. Granada: Comares.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Lambert, Silvie
    2004 “Shared attention during sight translation, sight interpretation and simultaneous interpretation”. Meta: Journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators’ Journal49 (2): 294–306. doi: 10.7202/009352aradressecopiéeune erreur s’est produite
    https://doi.org/10.7202/009352aradresse [Google Scholar]
  18. Li, Changshuan
    2010 “Coping strategies for fast delivery in simultaneous interpretation”. The Journal of Specialized Translation13: 19–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Liu, Minhua ; Schallert, Diane L. ; and Carroll, Patrick. J.
    2004 “Working memory and expertise in simultaneous interpreting”. Interpreting6 (1): 19–42. doi:  10.1075/intp.6.1.04liu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.1.04liu [Google Scholar]
  20. Liu, Minhua ; and Chiu, Yu-Hsien
    2009 “Assessing source material difficulty for consecutive interpreting: Quantifiable measures and holistic judgment”. Interpreting11 (2):244–266. doi:  10.1075/intp.11.2.07liu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.11.2.07liu [Google Scholar]
  21. Mackintosh, Jennifer
    2003 “The AIIC Workload Study”. InFORUM. Revue internationale d’interprétation et de traduction/International Journal of Interpretation and Translation1 (2):189–214. doi:  10.1075/forum.1.2.09mac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.1.2.09mac [Google Scholar]
  22. Mead, Peter
    2015 “Input Variables”. InRoutledge encyclopedia of interpreting studies, ed. by Pöchhacker Franz . 191–192. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Meuleman, Chris ; and Van Besien, Fred
    2009 “Coping with extreme speech conditions in simultaneous interpreting”. Interpreting11 (1): 20–34. doi:  10.1075/intp.11.1.03meu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.11.1.03meu [Google Scholar]
  24. Monacelli, Claudia
    2009Self-preservation in simultaneous interpreting: Surviving the role (Vol.84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.84
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.84 [Google Scholar]
  25. Napier, Jemina
    2004 “Interpreting omissions: A new perspective”. Interpreting6 (2):117–142. doi:  10.1075/intp.6.2.02nap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.2.02nap [Google Scholar]
  26. O’Loughlin, Kieran
    1995 “Lexical Density in candidate output on direct and semi-direct versions of an oral proficiency test”. Language testing12 (2): 217–237. doi:  10.1177/026553229501200205
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229501200205 [Google Scholar]
  27. Pio, Sonia
    2003 “The relation between ST delivery rate and quality in simultaneous interpretation”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter12: 69–100.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Pöchhacker, Franz
    2016Introducing interpreting studies. London: Routledge. doi:  10.4324/9781315649573
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315649573 [Google Scholar]
  29. Seeber, Killian
    2018 “Interpreting at the European Institutions: faster, higher, stronger”. CLINA: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Translation, Interpreting And Intercultural Communication3 (2): 73–90. doi:  10.14201/clina2017327390
    https://doi.org/10.14201/clina2017327390 [Google Scholar]
  30. Setton, Robin
    2015 “Simultaneous with text”. InRoutledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, ed. by Pöchhacker Franz . 385–386. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Setton, Robin ; and Dawrant, Andrew
    2016Conference interpreting: A complete course (Vol.120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.120
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.120 [Google Scholar]
  32. Shlesinger, Miriam
    1995 “Shifts in cohesion in simultaneous interpreting”. The Translator1: 193–214. doi:  10.1080/13556509.1995.10798957
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1995.10798957 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2000 “Interpreting as a Cognitive Process: How can we know what really happens?”. InTapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting. ed. by Jääskeläinen, Ritta ; and Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja . 3–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.37.03shl
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.37.03shl [Google Scholar]
  34. 2003 “Effects of presentation rate on working memory in simultaneous interpreting”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter12: 37–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Tissi, Benedetta
    2000 “Silent Pauses and disfluencies in simultaneous interpretation: A descriptive analysis”. The Interpreters’ Newsletter10:103–127.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Yudes, Carolina ; Macizo, Pedro ; and Bajo, Teresa
    2011 “The influence of expertise in simultaneous interpreting on non-verbal executive processes”. Frontiers in psychology2: 309 (1–9). doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00309
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00309 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error